One of the biggest problems with the theory of climate change is the perceived incongruity between long-term climatic shifts and short-term weather. The idea of a heating planet might even come as a welcome relief to anyone who ever woke up at Syracuse University to minus 16 degree weather and still had to head to his or her classes all day. Where do the fields of climatology and meteorology join?

Well, there’s actually quite a bit of disagreement between the fields. Meteorologists are much more likely to be skeptical about the theory of climate change, based on the natural weather fluctuations that are all too common in their field. Furthermore, the ‘Climategate’ faux-scandal at the University of East Anglia in 2009 was based on leaked e-mails between scientists who were complaining about the incongruity between their long-term climate data from things like ice cores and shorter-term weather anomalies.

I say ‘faux-scandal’ because, while it was certainly a little embarrassing, the scientists in question were completely cleared of any scientific wrongdoing, even though more than a few Fox News hosts used it as evidence for why former Vice President Al Gore is trying to take over the world — or something like that. I never was able to follow the twisted logic of how climatologists are somehow defrauding the planet. It just sounds too much like the Catholic Church condemning Galileo.

Also, there is the indefatigable Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who famously proclaimed after a snowstorm in Washington, D.C., that global warming is clearly a hoax … because of all the snow. I wish I was kidding, but hey, that’s our Senate. The biggest problem is that it is nearly impossible to prove direct causation from a warming climate to the more immediate effects of weather disturbances. I sure as heck wouldn’t mind if we skipped a Syracuse winter, but regardless of climate change, that won’t happen anytime soon. This is a big problem because people are much less willing to accept theories about a warming planet, and thus there is little political pressure to do anything to solve our collective climate problems.

One of the demonstrable effects of climate change is a destabilized climate. What do I mean by that? Quite simply, our current climate is based on an incredible amount of factors, and if we continue to push up the global average temperature — an aggregate of every temperature on earth — we run the risk of drastically shifting climate patterns. 2010 probably doesn’t seem terribly memorable in terms of heat, but globally, it is shaping up to be the hottest year ever recorded.

Warmer climates have big geographical implications because warmer temperatures and shifting weather patterns were possibly behind the heat wave in Russia this year, the terrible floods in Pakistan and the diminishing crop yields all over the world. The problem with a destabilized climate is we don’t actually know how much is human-induced, and thus it becomes difficult to muster collective outrage. We have yet to actually demand our politicians ensure the long-term climate security of the planet so that our children and their children won’t have to deal with the consequences of our collective failure to address this issue.

The fact is there is no national or international scientific body that officially disputes the validity of human-induced climate change. Weathermen, in general, may be more skeptical, but theirs is a problem with immediacy, not science. I can’t definitively say certain weather anomalies are consequences of climate change, as Gore famously does with Hurricane Katrina in ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ but we still have a climate crisis, regardless of whether or not our political leaders or the mindless talking heads on television perpetuate skepticism in the name of their popularity.

Science didn’t care when official doctrine held that the Earth was flat or that the Earth was the center of the universe. Delusions are comforting, and reality is hard to accept when it runs counter to your ideological leanings, but climate change is still affecting our natural environment and will drastically change the way humans live on this planet. The only question is this: Do you prefer safe illusions or hard truths?

Luke Lanciano is a junior political science major. His column appears every Tuesday, and he can be reached at lllancia@syr.edu.

 

Published on October 18, 2010 at 12:00 pm